Lol remember the ozone hole scare in the 90s right before Al Gore dropped his move An Inconvenient Truth. Every prediction of that movie failed. Ozone hole is gone. Dare you to mention this to a Democrat.
It was Climate Gate that brought me to the realization that the whole system was a fraud. Once you understand what that grift is all about, the bread crumbs lead straight to the Globalists and all things follow from there.
I think it's the most important Red Pill, and the easiest case to make.
If that's the case, what information should I be aware of to convince myself that we don't need to make substantial economic adjustments to stop destabilizing the climate?
The information of which I'm aware includes:
The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years
Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s
Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s
It seems this is compatible with climate change predictions. What of this is false? Or why should I not worry about it?
You asked your question in good faith, so I'll reply in kind.
"The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years"
This is simply not supported by data. The 1930's had many years of higher temps. They have been revising the data to fit their narrative. There are also some serious issues with how global temperature is measured, including the "heat sink" bias of having the ever-decreasing measuring sites being located in cities and in terrible locations impacted by proximity to buildings/pavement.
We just finished a 20 year period of no warming at all.
"Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s"
Again, not accurate, but more important is the arbitrary choice of time period you start measuring from. The world was always going to warm in the 20th century because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
"Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s"
I hate being repetitive, but the same arguments I used above apply here.
If you want to do a deep dive into my sources, I'd recommend:
https://wattsupwiththat.com
The big issue with the "climate models" is that they completely ignore the effects of things like Solar Flares and Cosmic Rays which have a much bigger impact on temperatures than any Greenhouse Gas effect.
Not only that, but a strong case can be made using history that mankind thrives in warmer periods.
Thanks for the link. The provided site appears to be a lot to study.
Many, including me, have been convinced by the media that climate change is an existential threat, and that radical adjustments must be made to stop it. If that's true, then things like an effective global carbon tax seem necessary; however, the Paris Climate Agreement seems ineffective and harmful to the West. The reliance on wind and solar instead of nuclear also seems questionable.
If climate change is false, a lot of people need to be convinced. In this case, we need something like Mike Lindell's short video (the one that's 16 minutes) summarizing the arguments accurately, succinctly, and in a way that equips the viewer for further study.
A point also needs to be made who and why manufactured the narrative we have accepted. Now that we see how blatantly the global media coordinated lying about Covid and the 2020 election, it is easier to see how the narrative could be false. However, there remains the question: if the narrative is fundamentally based on manipulated data, who originated it, and for what reason?
Records have only been kept since mid 1800’s. All previous charts are extrapolated data, but that data shows we’re just in a normal cycle and it’s not warming outside normal trends. Due to Grand Solar Minimum we’re actually going to see colder norms for a while and many predict a timely small ice age. The scientists that rely on gov’t grants for their income SKEWED climate data under DS threat think Gore to inject their narrative. It’s all a carbon tax ploy to enrich the DS.
That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
They'll say its because we banned CFCs. And I don't think its gone, just not talked about anymore. Likely the science behind it had nothing to do with CFCs. hell, it might actually have everything to do with polution.
It is gone, and that is exactly what they say when you bring it up. CFCs were banned in America so the ozone hole repaired itself. While the rest of the world was still using CFCs.
Because these morons believe (or at least make others believe) that the US is the only place in the world with pollution and if the US stops polluting than suddenly like magic pollution will cease to exist as if the rest of the world's pollution doesn't matter.
We’re already the cleanest first world country going. The major polluters are third world, communist nations and India. Time THEY cleaned up their act.
Nah, CFCs have been shown to degrade ozone in the lab, and they are banned pretty much world wide, including China surprisingly. However, the ban was not really needed as the primary release was due their use as refrigerants, and we were able to find better gasses for those, which significantly reduced demand of CFCs in general. The hole is still around BTW, but it's gotten much smaller, and you don't hear much about except in places like Australia, which is still affected by it.
Degrade ozone in a lab. However it takes a lot of travel from ground level, to float up to Ozone Layer level. During which there is a number of different layers of atmosphere that a CFC would have to go through before it could get to the ozone layer.
Why is the hole centered more where no one lives than where lots of people lived and used cfcs?
Yeah, they're lighter than air, so they do float to the outer atmosphere (as is ozone). It's actually pretty common for gasses to float that high. CFCs are only degraded by UV light, so they aren't degraded until they start getting close to the outer atmosphere, where UV is more intense. The reason why the hole isn't centered over a population are is because they are gasses that do not mix. Think about oil and water, even if you shake it them together, the oil droplets will eventually coalesce back into a single blob. Lastly, as odd as it may seem, the atmosphere has resonance frequencies that allow weather patterns to stay in a relatively fixed location, which is why it has stayed near the south pole for so long. Go look at the hexagonal storm at Saturn's pole, it's the same phenomenon. Any other holes that are formed would eventually make their way to the larger one and "merge".
Yes, and the ozone hole was because of us plebs and our hairspray, totally not from the nukes they used to light off in the atmosphere just to see what would happen
Lol remember the ozone hole scare in the 90s right before Al Gore dropped his move An Inconvenient Truth. Every prediction of that movie failed. Ozone hole is gone. Dare you to mention this to a Democrat.
It was Climate Gate that brought me to the realization that the whole system was a fraud. Once you understand what that grift is all about, the bread crumbs lead straight to the Globalists and all things follow from there.
I think it's the most important Red Pill, and the easiest case to make.
I see more and more masks on chins. I think normies are starting to realize that the plague isn’t dropping bodies left and right.
If that's the case, what information should I be aware of to convince myself that we don't need to make substantial economic adjustments to stop destabilizing the climate?
The information of which I'm aware includes:
The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years
Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s
Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s
It seems this is compatible with climate change predictions. What of this is false? Or why should I not worry about it?
You asked your question in good faith, so I'll reply in kind. "The top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past 15 years" This is simply not supported by data. The 1930's had many years of higher temps. They have been revising the data to fit their narrative. There are also some serious issues with how global temperature is measured, including the "heat sink" bias of having the ever-decreasing measuring sites being located in cities and in terrible locations impacted by proximity to buildings/pavement. We just finished a 20 year period of no warming at all. "Average global temperatures have risen 1.2 C (2.16 F) since the 1910s" Again, not accurate, but more important is the arbitrary choice of time period you start measuring from. The world was always going to warm in the 20th century because we were coming out of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. "Average global temperatures have risen 0.4 C (0.72 F) just between the 2000s and 2010s" I hate being repetitive, but the same arguments I used above apply here. If you want to do a deep dive into my sources, I'd recommend: https://wattsupwiththat.com
The big issue with the "climate models" is that they completely ignore the effects of things like Solar Flares and Cosmic Rays which have a much bigger impact on temperatures than any Greenhouse Gas effect.
Not only that, but a strong case can be made using history that mankind thrives in warmer periods.
Thanks for the link. The provided site appears to be a lot to study.
Many, including me, have been convinced by the media that climate change is an existential threat, and that radical adjustments must be made to stop it. If that's true, then things like an effective global carbon tax seem necessary; however, the Paris Climate Agreement seems ineffective and harmful to the West. The reliance on wind and solar instead of nuclear also seems questionable.
If climate change is false, a lot of people need to be convinced. In this case, we need something like Mike Lindell's short video (the one that's 16 minutes) summarizing the arguments accurately, succinctly, and in a way that equips the viewer for further study.
A point also needs to be made who and why manufactured the narrative we have accepted. Now that we see how blatantly the global media coordinated lying about Covid and the 2020 election, it is easier to see how the narrative could be false. However, there remains the question: if the narrative is fundamentally based on manipulated data, who originated it, and for what reason?
Records have only been kept since mid 1800’s. All previous charts are extrapolated data, but that data shows we’re just in a normal cycle and it’s not warming outside normal trends. Due to Grand Solar Minimum we’re actually going to see colder norms for a while and many predict a timely small ice age. The scientists that rely on gov’t grants for their income SKEWED climate data under DS threat think Gore to inject their narrative. It’s all a carbon tax ploy to enrich the DS.
Good question. How about the fact that it's not real?
That is not a useful response that's going to change minds. If people believe it's real, then arguments are needed to invalidate the things we have accepted as true.
They'll say its because we banned CFCs. And I don't think its gone, just not talked about anymore. Likely the science behind it had nothing to do with CFCs. hell, it might actually have everything to do with polution.
It is gone, and that is exactly what they say when you bring it up. CFCs were banned in America so the ozone hole repaired itself. While the rest of the world was still using CFCs.
Because these morons believe (or at least make others believe) that the US is the only place in the world with pollution and if the US stops polluting than suddenly like magic pollution will cease to exist as if the rest of the world's pollution doesn't matter.
We’re already the cleanest first world country going. The major polluters are third world, communist nations and India. Time THEY cleaned up their act.
I work with a lefty who believes that the US is fairly clean but only because we "export our pollution" by having all of our products made in China.
And they see that as no different than the pollution coming from our own imaginary smokestacks.
Nah, CFCs have been shown to degrade ozone in the lab, and they are banned pretty much world wide, including China surprisingly. However, the ban was not really needed as the primary release was due their use as refrigerants, and we were able to find better gasses for those, which significantly reduced demand of CFCs in general. The hole is still around BTW, but it's gotten much smaller, and you don't hear much about except in places like Australia, which is still affected by it.
Degrade ozone in a lab. However it takes a lot of travel from ground level, to float up to Ozone Layer level. During which there is a number of different layers of atmosphere that a CFC would have to go through before it could get to the ozone layer.
Why is the hole centered more where no one lives than where lots of people lived and used cfcs?
Yeah, they're lighter than air, so they do float to the outer atmosphere (as is ozone). It's actually pretty common for gasses to float that high. CFCs are only degraded by UV light, so they aren't degraded until they start getting close to the outer atmosphere, where UV is more intense. The reason why the hole isn't centered over a population are is because they are gasses that do not mix. Think about oil and water, even if you shake it them together, the oil droplets will eventually coalesce back into a single blob. Lastly, as odd as it may seem, the atmosphere has resonance frequencies that allow weather patterns to stay in a relatively fixed location, which is why it has stayed near the south pole for so long. Go look at the hexagonal storm at Saturn's pole, it's the same phenomenon. Any other holes that are formed would eventually make their way to the larger one and "merge".
Chlorofluorocarbons!
Don't forget the "new ice age": https://i.maga.host/VZWLY7d.gif
Yes, and the ozone hole was because of us plebs and our hairspray, totally not from the nukes they used to light off in the atmosphere just to see what would happen